~ A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you … John 13:34

The paths we follow

It’s a delight to have had two posts from Jessica, and if I might so say, two such good ‘uns – it’s like she’s not been away. She’s always made us think, and these two aren’t an exception to that. As I read her one yesterday it was patently clear that I was in the presence of one who has walked closely with her God. To anyone reading her posts that’s not an occasion of surprise. There was a point when the trajectory of her journey seemed clear enough. I came to this blog from following her progress on the Telegraph blogs, and thought it a clear example of a journey to Rome. Then, in July 2012, in a moving post, Jessica shared with us that she was encamped on Mt Nebo. Now, to those of you familiar with your Old Testament, you’ll recognised her reference. Nebo was the mountain from which Moses was able to see the Promised Land – but he was never to enter it. After long and prayerful discernment, Jessica could see the Roman Catholic Church, but she could not enter it.

It was about then that I began following. I recognised her point of view. My own journey began is the most Orange of Ulster Protestant traditions, and if I’m hard on young Bosco, it’s because he repeats much of the pile of old rubbish about the Church which I inherited and, God forgive me, believed for a while. Back then there was no Internet, and getting hold of reliable information, and of the books written by the Church Fathers was far from easy. It wasn’t until I was a trainee teacher and met my first Catholic friend that the scales began to lift. Without any discernible effort, my friend was the best evangelist for his church I ever met; anyone so patently good and holy could not be a ‘spawn of Satan’. He bore with my fierce anti-Catholicism with more good humour than I should have, had the positions been reversed, and he had a well-argued answer of my every objection. By that, I don’t mean he refuted everything, I mean that he directed me to reading which helped educate me. I came to realise that the early Church had been far more liturgical than I had imagined, and that the traditions which I’d been taught were later additions, were there as far back as the historian could go. Above all, there was his example. He’s dead these three years now, so he’ll not be embarrassed by my saying that his example did more to dispel old hatreds and prejudices than any book I ever read. We took to praying together, and he gave me something I treasure to this day, his own favourite Rosary. When I pray it, as I do from time to time, I remember him; he was a good man.

If my prejudices faded in the light of reason and history, that was not accompanied by any thought that Rome was my destination. In the good old plain English tradition to which I had come by then, I had found God in the way He meant me to find and serve Him. Politics of any sort has never attracted me, and from what I saw in ecumenical gatherings, there was a good deal of it with my Anglican and Roman Catholic friends; they were for ever complaining about what this or that hierarch was doing, and the faction fighting seemed unappealing. None of that was to say that my own little community didn’t have its tensions, but we had our Confession of Faith, and we had the Creed, and we talked things through as the Apostles of old had. We’d no need to wonder what the Latin original of anything said, or whether some grandee in some palace somewhere would lead the faithful astray.

My own journey has remained with the Lord as it has pleased him to lead me. I long ago gave up confessional arguments. Those who have crossed the Tiber, well I have sometimes wished I’d your conviction, but then if wishes were real, beggars would be kings. In fact the closest I’ve come to leaving my own tradition was a long flirtation with Eastern Orthodoxy, with which I find myself in substantial agreement. But my friends there were Russian, and I am not Russian, and cannot turn myself into something I’m not, so, as with the insights I had from Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism, I have endeavoured to benefit from them. So, like Jessica, I am on Mt Nebo, and having been camped there these many years, extend hearty welcome to all pilgrims who pass through. Yes, I know you are certain you are on the right path, so are all who pass through – and in so far as all are with Christ, then on the view that he who is not against us is with us, welcome.

About Geoffrey RS Sales

Post navigation

93 thoughts on “The paths we follow”

Quite, if the girl has ever written a bad post, I haven’t seen it, and I’ve read all of them, including some from the Telegraph. I find that my story is much like yours, I’m much where I started but a much more tolerant version, although my change left me much less Calvinist than I started.

I suspect that we have become the staff of the caravansary on Mt. Nebo, watching those with commitments to Christ, but also to earthly ministries pass by, and seeing that they are refreshed. Seems we have learned over the years that while all have some measure of truth, the whole truth remains with God, and not to be found in anybody’s buildings. Or so it seems to me. 🙂

Aye, that’s a grand way of putting it Neo. This is not indifferentism, because it is focussed on the saving love of Christ. It does not ignore, far from it, the price he paid, but it does say that his blood covers all who truly believe in him. As Jessica put it, ‘faith believes nor questions how’. Anyone who truly believes that Jesus Christ is confined within the bounds of ther one communion is welcome to that belief, but they need to face up to the question of how they answer those in other churches who equally sincerely believe that they are damned to hell. I see where such beliefs have led mankind and see in it evidence only of the ability of the devil to divide us and spread his evil.

Truth is a person, the Lord Jesus. He says those who follow him will be saved. That’s enough for me. Those who need to write a ream explaining that he really meant that only those in their church are saved, need to do that. I long ago ceased to need to scratch that itch.

For me, Romans 10:9-18 is a key text ‘all belong to the same Lord who is ruch enough, however many ask for his help, for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ Not ‘only faithful communicant Roman Catholics’, not, ‘only Baptists’, not ‘only Bosco’, not ‘only the Orthodox’, but all who call on the name of the Lord. So damaged by sin are we that we blind ourselves to this generosity.

After a bit of looking, this is, of course, one of Jessica’s main themes here, I found in one of her very early posts, “Credo” the quote I half remembered:

“When I had given much thought and pondered on the matter, I became convinced that these quarrels of Christians among themselves are not a matter of factual substance, but rather one of words and terms. For they all confess Christ Our Lord to be perfect God and perfect human, without any commingling, mixing, or confusion of the natures. This bipinnate ‘likeness’ (Phil. 2:6-7) is termed by one party a ‘nature’, by another ‘a hypostasis’ and by yet another a ‘person’. Thus I saw all the Christian communities, with their different Christological positions, as possessing a single common ground that is without any difference. Accordingly I totally eradicated any hatred from the depths of my heart, and I completely renounced disputing with anyone over confessional matters.

Rather revealing comments there, with someone called Jabba trying to claim the filioque was in the original creed and when challenged, gently, by Jess with some facts, never responding. This is precisely the thing which irriates me most. There are plenty of facts on the side of Rome, why oh why must its devotees invent ones which any educated man knows are not?? It’s not honest and it’s not helpful – oh well, rant over!

Yep, Jabba, as I’m sure you know, had a rather nasty habit of that, he’s one of very few people that drew a rather intemperate response from me for his personal attacks, and Kathleen, no less, backed me up. Sometimes rants are needed, I find! 🙂

There’s no Protestant like a Catholic with a personal revelation – unless it is a Protestant with a revelation that Catholicism is the work of Simon Magus (that was Bosco’s last effort – I’m still laughing).

Good brother Jeff, you agreed Simon Magus was run out of town by the apostles, but dig further, Roman historian pick up the tale when Simon went to Rome. This does not affect ones salvation. But if people want to tell me I don’t know the history of the CC, they are going to have to listen to CC history that I uncover. They have wonderful reasons why the CC is chock full of Babylonian pagan symbols and head dress…..well, its because Simon mixed it with Christianity and fed it to the people of Rome, and anyone else who would listen. This same religion is still here with us, in all its pagan splendor. We all know the pope carries a pine cone staff of Bacchus, that’s no secret. No one can deny the symbols are there, but they can justify it by calling me names….that makes it all better.

In college, I was taught early Church history from Paul Griffiths, I may be a bit rusty, let’s see if I can pick up the assertion, since he left or try to understand it. The spirit ‘proceeds’ from starts to originate from Gregory of Nazienzen prior to the Council of Chalcedon? and Both creeds were read at that council correct? There’s acknowledgement there and perhaps this is why the guy left, he doesn’t have counter evidence.

However, doesn’t the proceeding from the both the father and son originate earlier in Apostolic tradition from Tertullian, Jerome, and Ambrose?

“He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God . . . that which has come
forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one . . .He is made second in manner of existence – in position, not in nature.” Tertullian, The Apology,

Never mind, I can’t do it.lol Sometimes I like to try to debate a different side to better learn the subject, but that’s the best I can do. As I attempted to write more of an explanation of my previous thoughts, I just kept thinking this Jabba character is wrong. However, it’s strange I don’t run in a circle of Catholics that would take up Jabba’s assertion.

Many times, using logical persuasion, you can create a supporting narrative, but like you mentioned previously, the facts just aren’t there. Even if you want to give the viewpoint an honest examination. I don’t see how anyone could argue it wasn’t development, especially when Augustine, late in the game, is still using both “proceeds from the Father” and “proceeds from the Father and Son”

It is very interesting to point out the entire concept of the Baptist Church is to be free from religious authority other than scriptures. This has a tendency to going down a sink-hole at times. It would be interesting if Mr. Sales can explain how he maintains his interpretation of the Bible as non-private with the concepts of Baptist theology in-tact.

Quite easily. As I have just said to QV, the Bible is there, the Fathers are there, the Creed is there. Is there anything else we need? I never knew a Catholic or C of E Bishop who added to anything save the costs of his church. (In the West these churches are dying because the C of E has attached itself to the secular world and the RCC is trying to. Best steer clear of these places and stick with those who do not need palaces of salaries or anything alse to spread the Word.

While I agree with that statement, is not that somewhat discontinuous with Baptist theology being free from religious authority? Is not the creeds and councils foundational toward the overall authority of the Church?

Perhaps I may have discovered what I was attempting to explain earlier. Although I would agree with your assertion of history with the creed being a product of Apostolic tradition–I have discovered I’m okay with the fact.

When you ask “Is there anything else we need?” I am inclined to always answer apostolic tradition. Perhaps you answers this with “The fathers.” It remains a bit unclear to me with your statement or your comment “anything save the costs of his church.”

However, many unwritten customs of Christianity exist today (maybe not in your faith) because some of them existed before sola scriptura but how then were those traditions passed down?
It’s a question that can be answered with historical evidence.

Take for example, why does the Catholic Church bless water and oil? Why is there a Baptismal rite? It and Apostolic tradition is defended by St. Basil (On the Holy Spirit) and he defends his stance from scripture (2 Thessalonians 2:15) “15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

So instead being put off by any words, I would merely invite your to take a look at the passage. It may not convince you; however, there’s always wisdom to review why others have come to have their beliefs.

It clearly has not occurred to you that arguments which convince someone who wants to be convinced fail to do so with those of us who take a more sceptical view. The arguments don’t persuade me for a simple reason – they are poor.

I have had men like you come to me with arguments which convinced them because they wanted to be convinced, and who do indeed take the view you contravert – indeed, you contravert it yourself as you seek to use arguments. I have known Christ these last sixty years, and if you find him in the Eucharist, well and good, but do not presume that that is the only place he can be found. Do not, also, assume that a practice unknown in Scripture is some sort of magic spell. Too often you seem to me to mistake worship of Christ for some sort of magic where saying the right words makes something happen. Christ came to save us all and we can all come to him – we need neither celibate man to act as witch doctors, nor palaces, nor robes, nor big book of canon law which enshrine men in positions of power – we need humble child-like hearts open to his love.

I think you will find your church does not believe that people outside of it can be heretics. Has it not done enough damage in the world by throwing such words around, and by encouraging the State to burn people?

A prayer is indeed a transaction with God, and I can have that transaction without having to have some fellow at the front intoning under his breath.

On the Eucharist, I have long been happy to believe that Jesus is present, but prefer the Orthodox ‘real presence’ to the mumbo-jumbo of transubstantiation, which everyone knows is a medieval pseudo-science your church foolishly lumbered itself with, which its Aristotelean language and concepts. Another example of the folly of wanting to reduce everything to something that can be explained, not atypical of the old Roman mentality. It made them great road and Empire builders, great lawyers, but on the whole lousy philosophers and mystics.

The form God gave us is present in the Lord’s Prayer, on which all good prayer is modelled; this may be shocking to you, but the Latin Church does not own that prayer or God, and if you really think God only hears you in Latin and in the right form, I am rather sorry you have such a stunted God in mind; he might be too.

I have seen too many men turned proud spiritually by their finery and by feeling they are set apart in a special way to think that is what God intended for his ministers. What was it old Paul said about the husband of one wife for an elder? Paul didn’t get the discipline that they had to be celibate. Your church adds yokes to people and too often looks and sounds like the Pharisees.

Catholic teaching is just that, the views of a set of chaps about what they think Jesus would have liked, who managed to ignore the blooming obvious about what Paul says about elders. I think one has the right to point out to them that they are not abiding by what Paul said and to politely, but firmly, stick with Paul. Paul or Francis – guess who I’m with? You?

By saying they have to be celibate, it imposes it, and you, as ever, try to spin the truth. Paul said the elder should be a man with one wife – not that he should be celibate – a mistake made by many RCs who have to cover their naked denial – Paul was not saying all should be celibate. No wonder your church is so screwed up about sex – letting a bunch of celibate men make the rules is the path to barminess – just looks at some of your gay seminaries.

No, it is clearly optional. Men in your church made up a set of rules – and you wonder why you get gays in your seminaries and other screwed up chaps – still, you’ll soon have no priests left and no congregations, so who cares.

It sounds to me as though you know nothing about what we believe. If you think we doubt God’s omnipotence you are simoly incorrect. We do not doubt man is justifued through the sacrifuce of Christ, we simoly do nit think it is magic or needs reenacting – we do it as a memorial – as he said. We follow Christ, you follow him through a maze of man made rules. You need other mediators, we stick with the one in the Bible.

All who confess him in faith are his followers, and all believers are saints, and those saints preserved the words of the Evangelists which were recognised long before Trent. You say your church was founded by Jesus, so was mine, we just got round to throwing out the rubbish hundreds of years before the Italins finally got round to allowing you to have services in English.

‘My dad’s bigger than yours’ was never a convincing line, even in the mouth of a child; in the mouth of a grown man it partakes of something of the pathetic.

Nowhere does Jesus say that we have to believe in the dogmas of the Catholic Church. He says we have to believe in Him and we shall be saved. I believe him you believe what a set of men tell you. I am happy to accept your sincerity and your Christianity; you cannot do the latter. One of us follows Christ’s dictum that he who is not against us is with us, one does not.

Like many insecure people who have sought refuge in the bogus certainties of Rome, you vainly transfer your own insecurities to others. You rely solely upon your logic, which is that of our fallen nature turned into a fetish by the Enlightenment. I rely on the illogic of the love of God for sinners, which encompasses you and me and everyone else. When you grow in the Spirit and come to some wisdom, you will see that what is foolishness and illogical to your philosophy is easily explained by God’s love. Neither of us will go to hell – grow up in Christ and one day you will see how narrow the hell you have created, or allowed others to create, makes your Christian profession.

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.

Logical conclusion (by any human logic): God should cast the whole of creation, including all of us into the eternal fire and start again. This is not how Scripture continues though:

Of course he welcomes them. It is just your church which seems to believe that he does so only if someone says some magic words over them. What a sad view of the gift God gives us you seem to have. If Jesus had said ‘the can only come to me if they are baptised’, you’d have a point. He didn’t, and you haven’t.

It is not me who finds it off-putting – I’m always more than happy to engage in robust apologetics. The Truth is a person, Christ Jesus, not a pile of man-made Canon law which consolidates the power of a self-interested episcopacy, in this case presided over by a geriatric blabbermouth. If your Pope is not a proper Catholic, then you must be using some casuistry to follow the fellow. No, the authority I recognise is that of Jesus, and you know, the funny thing folk like yourself don’t get, is it isn’t very complicated at all. His teachings were passed on by his followers. Very quickly after his ascension it was decided to write things down so that those in other places would be able to follow the traditions. I read my Bible, I follow it. I read the Creed, which I believe, and the God I worship is that one.

What you do on your ‘front line’ is put folk off the faith once received because they see bitter fundamentalists more interested in bad-mouthing other Christians than in doing Christ’s work in the world. The only authority I recognise is what you recognise in calling your Pope a bad Catholic.

Geoffrey R.S. Sales – I haven’t commented on this blog for approximately 2 years – and probably won’t do so much in future. But I found this post rather interesting in terms of what it said about your own confession.

1) You claim to be a Baptist. This should mean that, for you, baptism follows belief. You come to an understanding that God has wrought a miracle in your life and then you get baptised. Baptism, in this context, is a form of witness; you profess your faith without having to say one word. Faith is not something that is passed onto you by your parents; ‘when you hear the word of God and are conquered by it, that is faith’ (to loosely quote Anders Nygren).

I read your paragraph above where you explained why are you Baptist rather than Russian Orthodox. It has nothing to do with believing that believer baptism is correct; rather, you found the Russians rather too foreign and you preferred the company of Yorkshire folk.

I do understand the theological arguments behind believer baptism based on the parallels between Old Testament circumcision and New Testament baptism; if you accept these, though, then the baptist church isn’t (or shouldn’t be) the place for you.

2) Despite your claims that your theology is entirely consistent with Romans 10:9-18, you do respond rather robustly, shall we say, against those of us who know that we are saved. This assurance is (of course) not a logical certainty; it is a moral certainty. This is the import of Romans 6v2, ‘God forbid! how can we who have died to sin live in it any longer?’ So – in response to Bosco’s claims to being saved – by biblical standards, he isn’t saved, because he continues to revel in it. Look at his web site and you see that his mind is filled with everything that is vile and horrible.He may, in some weird technical sense, avoid sinning himself, but his blog indicates that his mind is still attracted to filth.

Romans 10:9 ‘If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.’ Well, I have seen you arguing robustly against those of us who believe that we have this assurance.

I know that I am saved; I know the work that God has done within me; turning from him is a moral impossibility.

Your position is (of course) valid and well thought out. I don’t understand, though, why you call yourself a Baptist and then proceed to attack a position that is considered valid within the Baptist tradition.

Pastorally, I’d say that your position is a council of despair, at least for people like me (which probably means 100 percent of Christians doing their God-given best with what God has given them). I do my God-given best to live a good life, but there is one issue where I fail completely – the issue of forgiveness. I do my very best with this, but I fail. I seem to have a visceral hatred of people have done bad things. One example is a former boss. While his behaviour towards me was always correct, I saw how he abused his position to bully some of my colleagues. I confess that I was very, very happy when he contracted cancer of the stomach and died at a relatively young age. I do my best to forgive my enemies, but my best simply isn’t good enough. If getting to heaven is contingent on forgiving my enemies, then I know that I will burn in hell for an eternity. I see the example of Jesus; I try to live up to it, but I fail. Any view of salvation that leaves any part of it at all up to me is a council of despair. That, however, seems to be the line that you take.

Your theological outlook is valid, but I simply don’t see it within the framework of the Baptist church. I conclude that you probably would be much happier in your own skin if you did move to the Eastern Orthodox church.

Excellent points Jock. I don’t doubt that one has assurance; if I did I couldn’t be a Baptist. What I doubt about Bosco is his claim, and I doubt it based on his constant resort to untruths, not because I think he can’t know it. James was right, if you show me your faith and no works, then I take leave to doubt what you tell me; that’s where I doubt him – not where others do.

Forgiveness – yes, I’m with you, as most others must be.

The RO, I think their Christology good, and I think their presbyterian system originally good. But I see no reason to deviate from where it has pleased the Good Lord to put me.

With Bosco, I’ve seen something of what was going on here – and I think that you over-egg it a little with the ‘untruths’.

For me, the whole problem with his claim to salvation is that he shows that he is attracted to filth like a magnet.

Firstly, there was at some point an entertaining debacle over his chess ranking. I’ll tell you a little secret; we all quote the highest ranking that we ever had, because we all believe that if we had a little time to devote to the game, if we were not too busy with other things, we could get back to this ranking – and improve on it. I gave up chess when my father pointed out to me that all the world chess champions had either been certifiable, or even certified (I think that Steinitz may have been certified). This was a very wise piece of advice.

Secondly, on the ‘Catholics worship Mary’ business – if he had been prepared to argue with you on your terms, he could have achieved a ‘score-draw’. We all know what it boils down to; Catholics tell us that there is a difference between ‘venerate’ and ‘worship’, but whenever they start to define ‘venerate’, it looks to me suspiciously like what I always thought that ‘worship’ was all about. You actually need a very high IQ (higher than my own) to understand the difference. I have heard it all the arguments and understood them – and I do not agree that there is a substantial difference between ‘venerate’ and ‘worship’.

Of course, he didn’t want to achieve a score draw, since he wasn’t interested in a discussion. I don’t know what game he is playing. I don’t believe that he is ‘saved’ and hence he isn’t representing any Christian point of view. But he does seem to be able to put in a ridiculous comment, which then elicits an even more ridiculous reply. It seems to me that his set purpose on this blog is to make a fool of everybody.

Very good comments Jock – we could do with you more often. The reason I don’t bang on about Mary is the one you give. I can’t look into the hart of another, and insensitive old Yorkshireman though I be, I recognise different folks have different strokes, and while someone bowing before a statue makes me think the worst, I hold my tongue and I do not rush to judgment. Take folk as you find ’em, and most of ’em are OK.

Jock, thank you. Views presented and supported in a logical and reasonable manner. This is in the best tradition of this blog. We need more like you, so please rethink your decision not to comment.

“Any view of salvation that leaves any part of it at all up to me is a council of despair.” Would you also call this a council of despair? “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” Mt 7:13-14 Our Lord Jesus Christ opened Heaven for us all, but we must work like our salvation depended on it the get there. It does.

Steve – thanks for yours. Firstly, I’m not at all sure about commenting here, because it seems to me to be a discussion exclusively for the Catholic/Anglican/Lutheran/Orthodox approach. Geoffrey fits in here very well, because it gives him the company and discussion that he wants, which is lacking in his Baptist chapel – which (presumably) takes an entirely different approach.

For salvation – when would you say that Paul entered the narrow gate? Wouldn’t you put it at the time of his ‘road to Damascus’ experience? Do you think there is any possibility at all that at some time during his ministry he could have said, ‘OK – I’ve had enough of this’ and found a nice retirement villa in Spain, instead of pursuing his calling?

Of course we must work our salvation; the point is that to do otherwise is an impossibility for those of us who have died to sin.

This is why Bosco’s claims that he is saved look utterly false from a biblical point of view. By his own confession (found, for example on his web site), he seems to revel in sin.

You have submitted your will and intellect to the Church. Let us examine the Catechism of the Church:

818: “However, one cannot charge with sin of the separations those who at present born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers….All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians , and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

It would appear that Catechism wouldn’t outright call Geo’s faith counterfeit, it appears he’s a Christian; however, I would suggest that if one were trying to convince him to adopt the Catholic faith, perhaps extending an invitation to other evidence would persuade him more than a more passive-aggressive approach.

Philip Augustine–
To expound on what QVO is stating–the complexity of the nature of baptism in and of itself does not necessarily mark one who is baptised as necessarily a part of the Church. A baptism must be valid. For instance, while many Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are baptised, they lack Trinitarian baptism and are in essence not baptised. A solid argument can be given against the validity of a believers’ baptism as that does not hold the intention of grafting the individual into the body of the Church (neither would Presbyterian baptisms graft the individual into the Church). Thus, QVO contends that Baptist baptisms, due to their nature of lacking this intention, are invalid. This is actually an ongoing debate amongst Catholics and it seems for the most part that the Tridentine Catholics seem to argue for this position more-so. Indeed, many Orthodox Christians hold this position as well.

Thanks for acknowledging the debate amongst Catholics in your explanation. I think you can assume my point of view on it. I’ve witnessed Baptisms of Baptists, if you haven’t, I have checked on youtube and there are videos. They DO baptize using Trinity language. Now, I just looked up the requirements for RCIA and they state that as long as the Baptism is performed by ANY Christian Church, they observe it. You interject Mormonism and Jehovah Witness, but they are, of course, false equivalences.

A Tridentine Catholic, I understand the term–What’s the saying not all Tridentine Catholics are sedevacantists but all sedevacantists are Tridentine Catholics?

Sorry–I should have been more clear. JW and Mormon baptisms are definitely invalid on the grounds that they are non-Trinitarian baptisms. Certainly Baptist baptisms are also Trinitarian however some would object to a Baptist baptism as valid on grounds of the intention (as opposed to the formula).

“Baptists don’t practice infant baptism, so that passage doesn’t actually apply to them. But of course, that aside, no-one is to blame for the profession into which he is born.” “However, one cannot charge with sin of the separations those who at present born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them brought up in the faith of Christ,”

It would seem is contradictory.

For instance, where you bring up baptism appears to a dependent clause from the one mentioned above. Now, you could certainly make an assertion about children; however, I do not think that applies to Geoffrey.

You weren’t aware of a passive-aggressiveness? Declaring someone’s faith to be counterfeit would seem to me acting in such a way, or perhaps, you consider it to be just aggressive. However, I say it’s passive aggressive because you aren’t quite using the words heretic or heresy but that’s at least what I am picking up from the context.

Now again, What I am really saying is basically take a different approach. If you want others to consider what you have to say.

What is the saying you attract my flies with honey than vinegar?

So, again, present an invitation of evidence. If Geoffrey respects Sola Scriptura–provide scriptural evidence for Apostolic traditions. Once that’s established, you can talk about infant Baptism and being traced as far back as Origen.

Can you point me to the words and actions which say that presbyters have to be male celibates? Can you point me to the place he says that Peter will have successors? I am not asking for inference from men, but unequivocal evidence from scripture.

Does the Church not teach disciplines as well as dogma and doctrine? Are men free to deny a discipline?

No, it is implicit only for those who wish to see it as such. So, I have never met an Orthodox Christian for whom it was ‘implicit’, nor anyone not a Roman Catholic; solipsisms are just that, not least to those imprisoned in one.

My thanks to you, Phillip Augustine for putting the case more ably than I should have. That extract from the CCC was, indeed, my understanding of the position. It is not that I have not given long and prayerful thought to the Catholic argument, I have, but at no point has the Spirit moved me as he moved others here. Oddly enough, my Calvinist brothers and sisters would have an explanation for that.

If one believes that baptism is a sacrament – and that, so it seems to be is a matter of belief – then infant baptism makes sense. If one takes the view that what matters is a commitment to Christ, then the Baptist view makes more sense. I have said elsewhere here that this is something with which I have wrestled long and hard, but I remain in the tradition I was raised in, not through obstinacy or ignorance, but because it has not been vouchsafed to me that Christ is not here.

As I mentioned before, Biblical Scripture instructs us to listen to Apostolic tradition as well as read scripture: 2 Thessalonians 2:15 “15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” The learned the lesson through my faith and I learned the evidence for the need of infant Baptism by the tradition set as early in Christianity as Origen.

You’ve said yourself when looking at the history of the Nicene Creed, we must accept the historical evidence of people stilling using both terms as late as the 4-5th centuries A.D. However, look at scripture and look at the writings of Origen (Commentary on Romans 5.9 and Homilies on Leviticus 8.3). Look also at the old Didache to see that immersion wasn’t necessary as pouring over the head was allowed.

All I ever ask is to consider the evidence, search your heart with it, and pray to God to let the truth reveal itself with Grace.

“I believe it is possible – without reference to sacramental theology – to make an argument for infant baptism by analogy with circumcision,”
I object to this on the grounds that if infant baptism is defended by circumcision then only male infants can be baptised!

Col. 2:11-12:
“In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision,[d] by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” (NRSVCE)
Note: a spiritual, not a literal circumcision. Yes, a spiritual circumcision is a real circumcision however this is a different kind of circumcision. A circumcision of the Holy Spirit. I do not believe St. Paul was trying to say baptism was the new circumcision or had the same effects of circumcision. There is archeological evidence that ancient Jewish sects practiced a form of ritual washing which was an equivalent to baptism. They never replaced it with circumcision nor is St. Paul saying baptism is a replacement circumcision. St. Paul is simply saying it is a circumcision in that it cuts away one’s past life which was entirely useless in a similar way that circumcision cuts off a flap of skin on male genitalia that is entirely useless thus preparing them for new life with Christ. The only thing I gather from the text is that it clearly supports baptismal regeneration.

You think saying words over an infant is a sacrament, I think it is saying words. Your church thinks the child must make a personal commitment later, I agree with the last and think the magic words unnecessary. Nowhere does Our Lord support your belief -he supports mine every time he mentions the need to believe in him. Me, I’m with what Jesus said, you, not so much on this one.

He explicitly says we have to have faith and come to him; since that is impossible for babies your position is unscriptural. We have to respond to the gift. If you think a baby can, it is you who fails to understand what faith is. God saves who he will. Your church thinks unbaptised babies cannit see God – how sad, and how small that version of God is.

Quiaveruntoculi – do you think that the auto-da-fé is a useful approach for people such as Geoffrey whom you describe as ‘invincibly ignorant’?

I was unfortunate enough to be living in Lisbon at the time when Graeme Souness was manager of Benfica. It was after they lost to the left footed nuns of Braga that people really started getting annoyed at him – and by extension other Scotsmen who happened to be living in Lisbon at the time. My (Catholic) friends told me all about the auto-da-fé following the Lisbon earthquake of 1755 – and they were suggesting that it might be a good idea to try the same procedure on Graeme Souness if he didn’t start winning more matches.

Quite right Jock, and a good reminder. What little we do, we do only because the Spirit moves others. After a while you get a sense when you give a tract of who is taking in what you have been saying; invariably that person turns up at church the following day. Every time it happens we thank God for allowing us to be vessels of his will. There is something humbling about being the instrument through which he works; you know in your innermost self that nothing you do that is effective comes from you, but that it all comes from him; it is a feeling about which it is hard to write, bit which keeps you going on those rainy and windy mornings when all you get are the scoffers.

You will probably refuse to go to a Heaven in which you and a tiny remnant are not the only inhabitants. When you find yourself in a place where that is the case, it will be a hell of your own choosing.

"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." J.R.R. Tolkien <br>“I come not from Heaven, but from Essex.” William Morris